SUMMARY ORDER
On August 14, 2012 we granted Petitioner-Appellant Bradley J. Stinn a certificate of appealability to consider whether Skilling v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), affected his conviction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Absent a showing of actual innocence, Stinn has procedurally defaulted on his habeas petition. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621-22, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). Stinn argues that he is actually innocent because he was convicted under a theory of honest-services fraud that Skilling made constitutionally infirm. We disagree. Following an exhaustive review of the record including Stinn’s indictment, the government’s casein-chief, and the district court’s charge to the jury, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that Stinn was convicted under a theory of depriving his company of his honest services. Accordingly, we deny Stinn’s petition for a writ of habe-as corpus.
We have considered all of Stinn’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby
AFFIRMED.